6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region.
7.  On 22 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Subsequently he was committed to stand trial by the Glinkovskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region. The trial was fixed for 22 July 2003.
8.  In the morning of 22 July 2003 the applicant had a talk with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was dissatisfied with the result of that discussion and so refused counsel's services in writing.
9.  The first witness on the stand was the applicant's sister. The applicant had an altercation with her and the judge ordered that he be escorted out of the room.
10.  The applicant was brought back into the courtroom to make his final submissions. After that the judge declared the trial at an end and announced that the verdict would be handed down on 24 July 2003.
11.  On 24 July 2003 the judge delivered the judgment, finding the applicant guilty of murder and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment in a high-security colony.
12.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed grounds of appeal. He submitted, in particular, that the entire trial had been conducted in his absence, that he had not been represented and, as a consequence, had not been able to defend himself. He asked that his case be re-heard and that a different legal-aid lawyer be appointed to represent him before the appeal court.
13.  On 11 November 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court held the appeal hearing. The applicant was present but not represented, as he had requested. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction had been lawful and justified. In the Regional Court's view, there had been no violation of the applicant's right to defend himself because he had voluntarily refused the services of legal-aid counsel before the trial.
14.  On 15 June 2004 the Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk reviewed the applicant's conviction in the light of recent amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and held that the applicant should serve a prison sentence in a colony with less strict conditions of detention.
15.  On 27 December 2006 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the appeal judgment of 11 November 2003. The Presidium found that the applicant's right to legal representation had been infringed in the appeal proceedings and remitted the case for fresh examination by the appeal court.
16.  On 23 January 2007 the judicial authorities asked the President of the Smolensk Regional Bar Association to appoint counsel to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the appeal court.
17.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant's case was assigned to Ms D. as counsel. The applicant was informed accordingly.
18.  On 31 January 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court scheduled the appeal hearing for 13 February 2007. On the same day Ms D. studied the applicant's case file.
19.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant informed the Regional Court of his decision not to participate in the appeal hearing. In his motion he further questioned the effectiveness of his legal representation referring to the state-appointed lawyer's failure to meet him to prepare his defence.
20.  On 13 February 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court examined the case and upheld the applicant's conviction. Ms D. was present. She did not file any grounds of appeal and appeared to make oral submissions to the court on the basis of the grounds of appeal originally filed by the applicant. The applicant did not attend. The appeal court noted, inter alia, that the trial judge's decision to remove the applicant, who had disturbed order in the courtroom and made threats to persons present there, had been lawful and justified.
21.  On the same day the Smolensk Regional Court granted Ms D.'s request for the payment of her legal fees in the amount of 2,200 roubles and ordered the applicant to pay those expenses.